Tuesday, May 25, 2004

1926 Results - Grant and Magee elected

After 27 elections without electing a Negro League player, The Hall of Merit elects its second in as many years in 1926. Frank Grant topped the voting with 736 points, moving past Joe McGinnity and Sherry Magee. Magee was elected as well, with 722 points.

Bobby Wallace finished 3rd with 653 points, edging McGinnity (651). McGinnity was the top returning vote getter, but slipped to 4th this time around.

Completing the top 10 were Dickey Pearce, Lip Pike and newcomer Joe Jackson. Jackson was boycotted on several ballots due to his actions during the 1919 World Series, and should move up significantly in 1927.

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

I favor open-mindedness towards the possibility of making a change in the future.

mdb1mdb1's statistical analysis convinces me that expanding the ballot would have no impact at present on the reliability of results, so I'm with Andrew Siegel on reconsidering as we approach 1958.

dan b has indicated that he wouldn't want to give credit towards election for players he's now ranking 16-20; I wouldn't mind doing so; I think there are some damfine players, off the bottom of most people's ballots, who would be no disgrace to the HoM. I suspect my view on this point is in the minority at present, so I don't wish to advocate for it, merely to note it.

I think DanG is right to warn us that the pool is going to get deeper fast once we reach the mid-30s. In preparing his candidate lists, he has probably looked more carefully at the future prospects than most of us, so his warnings should not be dismissed. I think the tipping point for his idea will arrive when the majority of voters feel like they are leaving players off their ballot whom they would like to give some support for election. When we start electing three players a year, they will move up and off much faster, out of a much deeper pool, and we may find it important to weight a #18 placement differently than we do now.

That's what I really enjoy--a spirited discussion! Blame it on Joe for encouraging me when I was ready to move on.

As always, I'm trying not to limit my view to this particular election, or to recent results, etc. Trying to consider how visitors here might view us and being mindful of what the ultimate legacy of this project could be. Also trying to use well my limited time here.

The 20-man ballot isn't a big deal, of course. It just seemed like some were rejecting it out of hand, so I was glad to see a more thorough discussion of the topic. There are better arguments for it than I have made to date; at some point we'll revisit the topic, I'm sure.

Wow, this is an intelligent group - everyone knows what a Luddite is. As to my own intelligence, Marc knows me better than probably anyone here so you should listen to him.

P.S. The New Eligibles thread fails to show up on Hot Topics. The newbies thru 1942 are now posted there.

As to my own intelligence, Marc knows me better than probably anyone here so you should listen to him.

I don't doubt that you are smart and I wasn't really arguing with Marc.

As I'm sure Marc will testify, however, over the two years of this project, it is apparent that most of us 50 regulars are pretty smart. We've got professors, scientists, professionals and tons of people of varying vocations and avocations that indicate a high level of intelligence. Yet, we don't really know each other well enough to determine who is smartest (if that determination is even possible).

This isn't directed at you DanG, but we are all probably better off if none of us assumes, when making our arguments, that we are smarter than the other people here. That's the sort of thinking that tends to get people in trouble when they go to battle and later find out they were wrong. Then, they can't figure out how to extract themselves artfully.

This is the sort of scandal that will cause me to omit Murphy from the first ballot year when he becomes eligible for enshrinement. I did not omit O'Neill from his first ballot, because I see him as an innocent victim of Murphy's wily ways.

Jeff, please reconsider. It was only one moment of youthful (well, somewhat youthful...) indiscretion on my part. I'm back to my normally heterosexual ways and promise never to do such a wicked act again (not that there's anything wrong with being gay, mind you)! :-)

I've taken to only glancing at the ballots, and really only at #1-#15 and the newly eligible candidates. I doubt I'm the only one.

You're not. I agree with almost everything you've said in that regard, Jeff. I don't usually post a prelim ballot on the discussion thread, instead just discussing whichever candidate I'm most interested in, but I'd be happy to start if we'd limit the ballot thread to Top 15 and top ten omissions.